Support NeoGAF

[Guilty_AI]

You may not like growth but in this house you will respect growth. Do you understand me?

I understand you'd do an excellent politics statistician.

But again...why didn't the public interest stay low or fall off? What revolutionary updates did Hunt Showdown implement after it had been on the market languishing for a year?

Because the low interest in H:S was due to absence, not quality. Its potential players didn't try it, but then, through multiple free weekends and sales, the game had the chance to grow more as the ones from that base were reached and decided to stay.

Marathon's potential playerbase wasn't absent during its release. They all tried the game then left because they didn't like what they saw. On top of that, Bungie also decided to piss of part of that base by closing down Destiny 2 after a long period of neglect.

 

[Mengy]

For comparison, Expedition 33 made a lot more money than Hunt Showdown did.

Expedition 33 can do Marathon, but Marathon can't do Expedition 33.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

So...can you play the free week and leave a review or do you need to buy the game?

 

[Guilty_AI]

So...can you play the free week and leave a review or do you need to buy the game?

ye, it'll be visible but your review won't be counted towards the total score

 

[Salmorejo]

Showdown never had the baggage of a very controversial artstyle, plus the stigma of being the reason a very popular game (Destiny 2) was cancelled. Marathon has a lot of factors working against it.

Huge development costs too.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Because the low interest in H:S was due to absence, not quality. Its potential players didn't try it, but then, through multiple free weekends and sales, the game had the chance to grow more as the ones from that base were reached and decided to stay.

Marathon's potential playerbase wasn't absent during its release. They all tried the game then left because they didn't like what they saw. On top of that, Bungie also decided to piss of part of that base by closing down Destiny 2 after a long period of neglect.

This is why a lot of you guys get Live Service games fundamentally wrong. You (and many others) view them like your lunch table friends viewed traditional games back in the day.

Tomb Raider releases and 2 of your 8 friends buy it, play it for a few weeks, and move on. In your mind, 2 were interested enough to get it, and 6 hit the "hard pass" button. Pretty quickly your 8 friends are on to anticipating the next big game. This is an overly simplistic, binary way of looking at the modern market.

Today's market is a bell curve...

NeoGAF represents the -4 to -3 part of the Marathon graph. These people hate Marathon with a weird passion. They are least likely to buy it. 3 to 4 represents the Marathon Bros. We bought it and like the game enough to argue about it in the OT.

The rest of the market represents the in between. Their opinion of Marathon ranges from (-2) "It looks bad but maybe I'd try it if it were free" to (2) "It looks great but I don't have the time right now". 0 represents the "It looks OK" people.

The reason why Live Service games are so interesting is that they repeatedly ask the entire market to reevaluate their perception of the game when a new season drops.

Example: I didn't buy No Man's Sky at launch. I bought it years later when the narrative was "It's finally good now. They fixed everything."

Even you Guilty_AI , have shown more interest in trying the game at S2 launch than you ever did during S1. That's wonderful.

 

[Guilty_AI]

This is why a lot of you guys get Live Service games fundamentally wrong. You (and many others) view them like your lunch table friends viewed traditional games back in the day.

Tomb Raider releases and 2 of your 8 friends buy it, play it for a few weeks, and move on. In your mind, 2 were interested enough to get it, and 6 hit the "hard pass" button. Pretty quickly your 8 friends are on to anticipating the next big game. This is an overly simplistic, binary way of looking at the modern market.

Today's market is a bell curve...

NeoGAF represents the -4 to -3 part of the Marathon graph. These people hate Marathon with a weird passion. They are least likely to buy it. 3 to 4 represents the Marathon Bros. We bought it and like the game enough to argue about it in the OT.

The rest of the market represents the in between. Their opinion of Marathon ranges from (-2) "It looks bad but maybe I'd try it if it were free" to (2) "It looks great but I don't have the time right now". 0 represents the "It looks OK" people.

The reason why Live Service games are so interesting is that they repeatedly ask the entire market to reevaluate their perception of the game when a new season drops.

Example: I didn't buy No Man's Sky at launch. I bought it years later when the narrative was "It's finally good now. They fixed everything."

Even you Guilty_AI , have shown more interest in trying the game at S2 launch than you ever did during S1. That's wonderful.

Nothing of what you said changes the fact Marathon already reached its desired public though, unlike H:S which was far more obscure on release.

Now what is left is to make drastic changes until the game is "finally good", since its original format clearly isn't. NMS example you used is actually an excellent demonstration of this, the 1.0 game had a completely different formula from its 2.0 iteration when you finally decided to give it a chance. A huge amount of people showed up for release and dropped the game shortly afterwards. Even now that "its good" it cant reach the same heights it reached on release.

Same goes for Marathon. Yeah, if the game drastically changes course and makes a properly lenghted single player campaign that can be played fully offline with maybe an optional coop mode, even i'd be willing to get it (on sale) without being pushed by some bet.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Nothing of what you said changes the fact Marathon already reached its desired public though, unlike H:S which was far more obscure on release.

And you still can't explain what made Hunt Showdown grow in CCU.

Now what is left is to make drastic changes until the game is "finally good", since its original format clearly isn't. NMS example you used is actually an excellent demonstration of this, the 1.0 game had a completely different formula from its 2.0 iteration when you finally decided to give it a chance. A huge amount of people showed up for release and dropped the game shortly afterwards. Even now that "its good" it cant reach the same heights it reached on release.

That's OK. No Mans Sky made the majority of its revenue after the initial launch fizzled. Marathon will as well. That's the beauty of Live Service.

Same goes for Marathon. Yeah, if the game drastically changes course and makes a properly lenghted single player campaign that can be played fully offline with maybe an optional coop mode, even i'd be willing to get it (on sale) without being pushed by some bet.

Hunt never had to do that. Nor did Tarkov.

I suspect Marathon won't either.

 

[Zacfoldor]

Truth?

 

[Guilty_AI]

And you still can't explain what made Hunt Showdown grow in CCU.

I already did. Eyes on it, something Marathon is not lacking in.

That's OK. No Mans Sky made the majority of its revenue after the initial launch fizzled.

- After drastically changing its formula and even visuals.

Hunt never had to do that. Nor did Tarkov.

I suspect Marathon won't either.

I merely presented my terms. Other people have different terms like having a PvE only mode, more types of game modes, changes to its visuals, etc. Both Hunt and Tarkov did do things like that.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I already did. Eyes on it, something Marathon is not lacking in.

At what point did everyone see Hunt Showdown? Did that happen yet?

- After drastically changing its formula and even visuals.

At what point did No Man's Sky drastically change its formula and visuals? Do you have a date for this?

I merely presented my terms. Other people have different terms like having a PvE only mode, more types of game modes, changes to its visuals, etc. Both Hunt and Tarkov did do things like that.

Now you're getting it.

The Omega Genre can do Zelda, Zelda can't do The Omega Genre.

Marathons greatest strength is that it can offer different experiences for different player types. The gamers in the middle of the bell curve are going to be pulled at a greater veracity than when Overwatch adds their Eichenwalde map and Orisa hero.

 

[Guilty_AI]

At what point did everyone see Hunt Showdown? Did that happen yet?

Gradually over years, with free weekends and sales.

At what point did No Man's Sky drastically change its formula and visuals? Do you have a date for this?

First on November 26 2016, with the introduction of base building.
Again on July 24 2018, with the introduction of full multiplayer.
Both updates also brought drastic visual changes.

Now you're getting it.

The Omega Genre can do Zelda, Zelda can't do The Omega Genre.

Marathons greatest strength is that it can offer different experiences for different player types. The gamers in the middle of the bell curve are going to be pulled at a greater veracity than when Overwatch adds their Eichenwalde map and Orisa hero.

Any game can do anything if the devs decide to invest time and money to implement it, this isn't a "marathon strength". If Overwatch developers decide to make a kart mode, there's absolutely nothing in the game that could physically stop them from doing it. Heck, CS made a Battle Royale mode whenever that was popular.

NMS even has pokemon battles these days, and people were actually making racing modes on Halo and Unreal tournment back in the day.

 

[KyoZz]

And you still can't explain what made Hunt Showdown grow in CCU.

Hunt doesn't look like a game where someone who ate a kilo of Skittles vomited on your screen.
I could elaborate on other reasons, but I don't want to waste my time on you so you can simply say "fair enough" without actually responding, just because you are wrong again and have nothing to argue.

 

[Mengy]

Marathons greatest strength is that it can offer different experiences for different player types. The gamers in the middle of the bell curve are going to be pulled at a greater veracity than when Overwatch adds their Eichenwalde map and Orisa hero.

It can't unless Bungie changes it so that it can. For now Marathon is simply a very narrowly focused, limited in scope, sweaty hardcore PvP extraction game.

Any game can become anything else if the devs spend the time and money to do it. That's not something which is exclusive to any one game or genre, but it does require commitment and dedication on the devs part to do so.

I would argue its far easier for a successful and profitable game to morph into something it is not. That is why No Man's Sky has been able to gradually improve and change over the course of ten years, every update spurned on more sales which funded the ongoing development. Marathon is not a profitable nor successful game, plus it has a huge and expensive dev team. For comparison's sake NMS was created by Hello Games, a small indie team with less than 50 people.

The strength you keep arguing Marathon has is not the winning argument you think it is, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

 

[clarky]

Hunt doesn't look like a game where someone who ate a kilo of Skittles vomited on your screen.
I could elaborate on other reasons, but I don't want to waste my time on you so you can simply say "fair enough" without actually responding, just because you are wrong again and have nothing to argue.

Fair enough.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Gradually over years, with free weekends and sales.

So it happened gradually over the years for Hunt Showdown, but "everyone" saw, and definitively judged, Marathon?

I wonder when "everyone saw" Fortnite? Was it when people were calling it a fad in 2017 / 2018? When NBA, NFL, and NHL were doing Fortnite emotes after scoring? Or was it in 2024, when it reached it's peak CCU?

You're pretty flimsy ground here.

First on November 26 2016, with the introduction of base building.
Again on July 24 2018, with the introduction of full multiplayer.
Both updates also brought drastic visual changes.

And yet its floor raised the most in 2020 and 2026...

I wonder at which point "everyone saw" No Mans Sky and definitively judged it?

Any game can do anything if the devs decide to invest time and money to implement it, this isn't a "marathon strength". If Overwatch developers decide to make a kart mode, there's absolutely nothing in the game that could physically stop them from doing it.

It's all based on framework. You can get a hang glider to fly and a 2,000lb boulder to fly...but it's way easier to get the hang glider to fly based on it's frame.

Marathon has significantly more interesting directions to go than Overwatch. Heck, didn't Blizzard scrap their PvE mode because they figured it wasn't worth the effort? Nobody called Overwatch the #OmegaGenre.

NMS even has pokemon battles thes days, and people were actually making racing modes on Halo and Unreal tournment back in the day.

Survival and Extraction are the two genres of the future because both can get the widest variety of gameplay experiences in them. I love what they're doing with No Mans Sky because...while right now it's not for me, I know all it takes is one or two interesting updates and I'd jump in.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Hunt doesn't look like a game where someone who ate a kilo of Skittles vomited on your screen.

That could be one of the reasons why it's going to get passed by Marathon.

Fortnite, League of Legends, Valorant, and Overwatch look like Skittles. Marathon looks like a slightly better Skittles.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It can't unless Bungie changes it so that it can.

Read this...

Any game can become anything else if the devs spend the time and money to do it. That's not something which is exclusive to any one game or genre, but it does require commitment and dedication on the devs part to do so.

Stop this nonsense. All genres have different frameworks with which to build from. Overwatch has been Overwatch for the last 10 years because Blizzard doesn't see where effort can lead to growth.

Bungie made an Extraction Shooter because it's a genre that responds exceptionally well to creativity and new ideas.

I would argue its far easier for a successful and profitable game to morph into something it is not. That is why No Man's Sky has been able to gradually improve and change over the course of ten years, every update spurned on more sales which funded the ongoing development. Marathon is not a profitable nor successful game, plus it has a huge and expensive dev team. For comparison's sake NMS was created by Hello Games, a small indie team with less than 50 people.

Marathon is in Early Access. It's launch appears to be S5, when Sony and Bungie will likely come together and assess its performance.

The strength you keep arguing Marathon has is not the winning argument you think it is, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

Sony agrees with me, not you.

 

[Guilty_AI]

So it happened gradually over the years for Hunt Showdown, but "everyone" saw, and definitively judged, Marathon?

Yes, because Marathon was developed by the Bungie, creators of the Halo and the Destiny 2, sponsored by the Sony. That is clearly observable by their respectives launch CCUs and general media attention on release.

I wonder when "everyone saw" Fortnite? Was it when people were calling it a fad in 2017 / 2018?

When everyone had mixed feelings on PUBG and suddenly Epic games, creator of the very unreal engine powering PUBG, decided to invest on the genre, all while mixing in a bit of minecraft.

And yet its floor raised the most in 2020 and 2026...

Thats 2018 with the major update i mentioned before. After that it was just gradually building upon the new formula that had been estabilished by it.

I wonder at which point "everyone saw" No Mans Sky and definitively judged it?

On release. You were probably too young to remember but NMS was quite the hyped game leading to its release, and the majority hated it when it did. It was massively memed and made fun of by pretty much everyone, i've even seen people irl talking about it back then.

It has yet to reach the same level of interest even now that "its good", after drastically changing its formula.

It's all based on framework. You can get a hang glider to fly and a 2,000lb boulder to fly...but it's way easier to get the hang glider to fly based on it's frame.

You're talking about engine capabilities of the game. It has nothing to do with genre. By that logic ARMA should be the most successful game ever since it can do so many things it actually spawned both Battle Royales and Extraction shooters.

Survival and Extraction are the two genres of the future because both can get the widest variety of gameplay experiences in them. I love what they're doing with No Mans Sky because...while right now it's not for me, I know all it takes is one or two interesting updates and I'd jump in.

Again, by that logic the genre of the future should've been sandbox games like ARMA. It "can do" almost anything, including BRs and extraction. Why hasn't it become it? Why did specific genres born out of it with much more limitations became far more successful instead? Can you explain that under your logic of X can do Y?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Yes, because Marathon was developed by the Bungie, creators of the Halo and the Destiny 2, sponsored by the Sony. That is clearly observable by their respectives launch CCUs and general media attention on release.

There are exactly 0 people on earth that work in advertising who think Sony has achieved perfect marketing. Hence why you're more interested in playing Marathon S2 than you were in S1.

When everyone had mixed feelings on PUBG and suddenly Epic games, creator of the very unreal engine powering PUBG, decided to invest on the genre, all while mixing in a bit of minecraft.

What date did that happen?

Thats 2018 with the major update i mentioned before. After that it was just gradually building upon the new formula that had been estabilished by it.

Extraction is a great formula isn't it?

On release. You were probably too young to remember but NMS was quite the hyped game leading to its release, and the majority hated it when it did. It was massively memed and made fun of by pretty much everyone, i've even seen people irl talking about it back then.

But if everyone judged it on release, how did the majority of sales occur after the launch window?

It has yet to reach the same level of interest even now that "its good", after drastically changing its formula.

No Man's Sky is a restaurant that only serves live octopus. It's excellent for those who eat live octopus but still needs to broaden it's menu to get people like me into the game.

Does that analogy remind you of anything?

You're talking about engine capabilities of the game. It has nothing to do with genre. By that logic ARMA should be the most successful game ever since it can do so many things it actually spawned both Battle Royales and Extraction shooters.

Nope, it has to do with framework as well. Star Trek delivered short 45 minute episodes that felt very different from one another...just as Night Marsh delivers a different experience than Perimeter.

Again, by that logic the genre of the future should've been sandbox games like ARMA. It "can do" almost anything, including BRs and extraction. Why hasn't it become it? Why did specific genres born out of it with much more limitations became far more successful instead? Can you explain that under your logic of X can do Y?

I don't know enough about ARMA. I suspect it has more innate limitations than you're willing to admit.

 

[KyoZz]

That could be one of the reasons why it's going to get passed by Marathon.

Fortnite, League of Legends, Valorant, and Overwatch look like Skittles. Marathon looks like a slightly better Skittles.

None of them is an extraction shooter...

And I already told you why these where successful, it has to do with multipliers but you decided to ignore this because it just destroyed your narrative.

 

[Venzik]

There is no hatred in Men_in_Boxes. But there is a slow burning passion.

Like embers of a campfire where friends laughed, we poured our water on stones, and time moved on beyond us..

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

There is no hatred in Men_in_Boxes. But there is a slow burning passion.

Like embers of a campfire where friends laughed, we poured our water on stones, and time moved on beyond us..

 

[Guilty_AI]

There are exactly 0 people on earth that work in advertising who think Sony has achieved perfect marketing. Hence why you're more interested in playing Marathon S2 than you were in S1.

Most of the bad press comes from the fact it is a live service game, and no ones likes sony doing live service games. They're free to improve on that by not making it inherently live service if they so wish

What date did that happen?

Whatever date they launched BR mode (which funnily enough is a drastic alteration of Fortnite's original tower defense formula)

Extraction is a great formula isn't it?

NMS isn't extraction

But if everyone judged it on release, how did the majority of sales occur after the launch window?

Because when it did launch, many people were perfectly aware of the game but didn't buy it because they didn't like what they saw.

No Man's Sky is a restaurant that only serves live octopus. It's excellent for those who eat live octopus but still needs to broaden it's menu to get people like me into the game.

Does that analogy remind you of anything?

tentacle porn

LmaNope, it has to do with framework as well. Star Trek delivered short 45 minute episodes that felt very different from one another...just as Night Marsh delivers a different experience than Perimeter.

I dont think you understand how game development works.

I don't know enough about ARMA. I suspect it has more innate limitations than you're willing to admit.

lmao, this is from 2012 - 2014. Meet the true omega game.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Most of the bad press comes from the fact it is a live service game, and no ones likes sony doing live service games. They're free to improve on that by not making it inherently live service if they so wish

 

[Guilty_AI]

Its the truth, does the truth bothers you that much?

 

[clarky]

Do you guys no get bored going around in circles? You seem to be saying the same shit as a month ago.

 

[simpatico]

Hunt Showdown was not a billion dollar AAA first party tent-pole release. I think the stakeholders had very different expectations and internal measurements. The fact we're even comparing a scrappy little AA shooter with Bungie and Sony's attempt at a lumbering industrial digital money extractor shows how far it's fallen. It was meant to be compared to Fortnite, Overwatch and CoD.

 

[clarky]

Hunt Showdown was not a billion dollar AAA first party tent-pole release. I think the stakeholders had very different expectations and internal measurements. The fact we're even comparing a scrappy little AA shooter with Bungie and Sony's attempt at a lumbering industrial digital money extractor shows how far it's fallen. It was meant to be compared to Fortnite, Overwatch and CoD.

Marathon wasn't a billion dollars either.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Hunt Showdown was not a billion dollar AAA first party tent-pole release. I think the stakeholders had very different expectations and internal measurements. The fact we're even comparing a scrappy little AA shooter with Bungie and Sony's attempt at a lumbering industrial digital money extractor shows how far it's fallen. It was meant to be compared to Fortnite, Overwatch and CoD.

The reason why I bring up Hunt and Tarkov is because it shows two Extraction Shooters growing over time, without revolutionary updates.

Obviously both of those titles had different economic expectations going in. The reason why I view this as irrelevant to the conversation is because Sony has clearly given Bungie another year to get Marathon off the ground. Economics no longer factor in to near term development.

If you look at the S2 trailer, and read what their plans are for S3 - S5, it clearly illustrates a framework advantage over Hunt and Tarkov. One year from now, Marathon will have much more gameplay variety than both of those titles.

Lift is inevitable. How much lift is the question.

 

[simpatico]

Marathon wasn't a billion dollars either.

Correct. $3.6 billion to be exact. You think Bungie is going to release another full project with Sony?

 

[Guilty_AI]

Marathon wasn't a billion dollars either.

Just half a billion, not accounting bungies purchase.

 

[Guilty_AI]

If you look at the S2 trailer, and read what their plans are for S3 - S5, it clearly illustrates a framework advantage over Hunt and Tarkov. One year from now, Marathon will have much more gameplay variety than both of those titles.

Lift is inevitable. How much lift is the question.

But will that variety be good enough to attract people, is the actual question. If variety was all that mattered, as i said earlier, ARMA would be the king of fps right now.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

But will that variety be good, is the actual question. If variety was all that mattered, as i said earlier, ARMA would be the king of fps right now.

Yes, Bungie will try to make S2, and future seasons, fun.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Yes, Bungie will try to make S2, and future seasons, fun.

"Try"

You said it correctly.

Remember, no matter how much they add stuff like PvE or whatever, there are dozens of other way more fully realized games out there that have been doing exactly what people wanted for years. THATs what they're up against.

 

[clarky]

Correct. $3.6 billion to be exact. You think Bungie is going to release another full project with Sony?

I'm not getting into it if this is your answer.

You buy a corner shop and you find out all the food is past its sell by date. The food didn't cost you the purchase price the shop did. Sure the food was a factor in the price along with other things but it was the shop that cost the money. Just restock and accept the previous owners had you over or close down.

Just half a billion, not accounting bungies purchase.

250 million?

 

[Guilty_AI]

250 million?

Accounting marketing costs should be +400 million

 

[simpatico]

The reason why I bring up Hunt and Tarkov is because it shows two Extraction Shooters growing over time, without revolutionary updates.

Obviously both of those titles had different economic expectations going in. The reason why I view this as irrelevant to the conversation is because Sony has clearly given Bungie another year to get Marathon off the ground. Economics no longer factor in to near term development.

If you look at the S2 trailer, and read what their plans are for S3 - S5, it clearly illustrates a framework advantage over Hunt and Tarkov. One year from now, Marathon will have much more gameplay variety than both of those titles.

Lift is inevitable. How much lift is the question.

The bones of Marathon were never the problem. It's good at what it sets out to do if you ignore the budget and break-even CCU needs. It's just a niche product compared to the budget. The art style prevents it from even being as big as Tarkov. Consistently bringing in Hunt numbers is realistic, but I don't think Hunt numbers are anywhere near the break-even point for what they spent on it. Especially now that we know the full Bungie team worked on it. I think extraction shooters by nature have fleeting communities because they are inherently cut-throat. The vibe around them is every man for himself. Tarkov, AA SlavWare at its core, is perfectly at home there. Its developers were forged by it. Bungie is a big doughy western game. Time will tell if it can swing by those ropes. I don't think gender-based developers are cut out for that kind of competitive environment, and I certainly don't think there are enough PS5 owners who want to make that their primary game to ever make it profitable. Destiny as a game had the polar opposite energy. You were a Guardian. The entire point was community, collecting and helping. Sherpas would drag new recruits through raids. Now they're rewarded for shooting new recruits in the back and all the guns you collect get wiped. It's just the perfect storm of floppage.

 

[clarky]

Accounting marketing costs should be +400 million

Source?

Reports said Marathon cost $250 million. I've not heard anything higher than than other than just now, from you.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

The bones of Marathon were never the problem. It's good at what it sets out to do if you ignore the budget and break-even CCU needs. It's just a niche product compared to the budget.

The raw veal argument. I agree with you that Marathon did one thing well and that one thing appealed to a small, niche audience.

The art style prevents it from even being as big as Tarkov. Consistently bringing in Hunt numbers is realistic, but I don't think Hunt numbers are anywhere near the break-even point for what they spent on it. Especially now that we know the full Bungie team worked on it.

I think Marathon is a platform and only Sony, Bungie & Men_in_Boxes knows it.

You judge a platform differently than you judge a game. You guys want to judge Marathon like it's from 2004.

You can only judge Marathon like that if you try your hardest to ignore games that have dramarically risen in CCU over the last 10 years. Roblox now has more MAU than Steam and Playstation.

I think extraction shooters by nature have fleeting communities because they are inherently cut-throat. The vibe around them is every man for himself. Tarkov, AA SlavWare at its core, is perfectly at home there. Its developers were forged by it. Bungie is a big doughy western game. Time will tell if it can swing by those ropes. I don't think gender-based developers are cut out for that kind of competitive environment, and I certainly don't think there are enough PS5 owners who want to make that their primary game to ever make it profitable. Destiny as a game had the polar opposite energy. You were a Guardian. The entire point was community, collecting and helping. Sherpas would drag new recruits through raids. Now they're rewarded for shooting new recruits in the back and all the guns you collect get wiped. It's just the perfect storm of floppage.

Destiny is dead because they couldn't figure out how to make it work. Marathon will be significantly less "cut throat" by S5. It'll be as cut throat as you want it to be. Some players will spend 80% of their time on the PvP heavy maps. Other players will spend 80% of their time on the more PvE centric maps. Everyone will be pushing towards the goal of whatever replaces that PoS end game map Cryo Archive.

 

[duhmetree]

As it's been stated, they need to lean heavily into PvE and casual loops. It is what it is. You need a much larger playerbase and that will not happen currently as is.

When I come home and just need to decompress, I do not want to go sweat mode in PvP. You can't play current Marathon unless you're fully locked in. I don't always have that luxury. After a long day, it'd be nice to just come in and casually shoot shit and get some progress/loot. I had 214 hours in Season 1. 99.9% solo. I reached a point though where I just wasn't able to lock in and the game becomes decreasingly fun when you keep getting no where. Then it gets to the point that the wipe is right around the corner.. I think 3 month wipes is too short for me, especially when I'm busy with life. I know the tryhards fly through content and ranks. Every aspect of gamer ( tryhard and casual ) needs a better overall loop. Especially end game

But allowing players to pve, to actually use their gear and loot, learn maps and gameplay would go a long way imo. The game will grow when Solo's have a fleshed out experience and PvE depth is added.

 

[duhmetree]

Do you really think so? I doubt it goes over 50K during the free week, S2 just isn't enough of a course correction to bring in any new players, let alone revitalize interest in many players who have already left the game.

Marathon is going to need some serious big changes & new content to bring new interest in, IMHO. I don't think a night mode of an existing map and a new player class is enough.

Yeah. Summer is here, everyone out of school. Free week of new-ish game. I'd expect similar server slam numbers. I'm sure Sony will push it hard on console. Will they maintain that? No. But it should be a strong week and hopefully add a decent chunk to the player base. Then D2 final update will take a lot of the player base away.

Bungie would be smart to have the PvE playlist active on the free week.